Greg Copeland wrote:

On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 14:47, mlw wrote:

Please no threading threads!!!

Ya, I'm very pro threads but I've long since been sold on no threads for
PostgreSQL.  AIO on the other hand... ;)

Your summary so accurately addresses the issue it should be a whole FAQ
entry on threads and PostgreSQL.  :)

Thanks! I do like threads myself. Love them! Loving them, however does not mean that one should ignore their weaknesses. I have a PHP session handler (msession) which is threaded, but I am very careful with memory allocation, locks, and so on. I also do a lot of padding in memory allocations. I know it is wasteful in the short term, but it keeps the little gnats from hosing up the heap.

Drawbacks to a threaded model:

(1) One thread screws up, the whole process dies. In a multiple process application this is not too much of an issue.

(2) Heap fragmentation. In a long uptime application, such as a database, heap fragmentation is an important consideration. With multiple processes, each process manages its own heap and what ever fragmentation that exists goes away when the connection is closed. A threaded server is far more vulnerable because the heap has to manage many threads and the heap has to stay active and unfragmented in perpetuity. This is why Windows applications usually end up using 2G of memory after 3 months of use. (Well, this AND memory leaks)

These are things that can't be stressed enough.  IMO, these are some of
the many reasons why applications running on MS platforms tend to have
much lower application and system up times (that and resources leaks
which are inherent to the platform).

BTW, if you do much in the way of threaded coding, there is libHorde
which is a heap library for heavily threaded, memory hungry
applications.  It excels in performance, reduces heap lock contention
(maintains multiple heaps in a very thread smart manner), and goes a
long way toward reducing heap fragmentation which is common for heavily
memory based, threaded applications.

Thank's I'll take a look.

(3) Stack space. In a threaded application they are more limits to stack usage. I'm not sure, but I bet PostgreSQL would have a problem with a fixed size stack, I know the old ODBC driver did.

Most modern thread implementations use a page guard on the stack to
determine if it needs to grow or not.  Generally speaking, for most
modern platforms which support threading, stack considerations rarely
become an issue.

One of my projects, msesson, I wrote a SQL (PG and ODBC) plugin. The main system thread didn't crash, the server threads went down quickly. I had to bump the thread stack up to 250K to work. That doesn't sound like much, but if you have 200 connections to your server, thats a lot of memory that has to be fit into the process space.

(5) Lastly, why bother? Seriously? Process creation time is an issue true, but its an issue with threads as well, just not as bad. Anyone who is looking for performance should be using a connection pooling mechanism as is done in things like PHP.

I have done both threaded and process servers. The threaded servers are easier to write. The process based severs are more robust. From an operational point of view, a "select foo from bar where x > y" will take he same amount of time.

I agree with this, however, using threads does open the door for things
like splitting queries and sorts across multiple CPUs.  Something the
current process model, which was previously agreed on, would not be able
to address because of cost.

Example: "select foo from bar where x > y order by foo ;", could be run
on multiple CPUs if the sort were large enough to justify.

After it's all said and done, I do agree that threading just doesn't
seem like a good fit for PostgreSQL.

Yes, absolutely, if PostgreSQL ever grew threads, I think that should be the focus, forget the threaded connection crap, threaded queries!!

How about this:
select, from (select * from T) as T1, (select * from X) as X1 where =

The two sub queries could execute in parallel. That would rock!

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

Reply via email to